Is a Third party/Multi party system better than a two party?

[Garkland]

We have seen how divided this nation has gotten over the last four years. Now more than ever people have been split by party lines. I personally have seen the division in this country firsthand. So it only makes sense that people are tired of the "party games" that a two party system creates, a now people want a three party or even a multi party system. So what do you think? Do you think a Three party or Multi party system is better than a two part one? Or is the two party system just fine, and we don't need 10 other parties? (Maybe you support a one party as well, don't worry haven't forgotten about you guys either! )


My opinion:

I support a Two party system, although I'm open to a Multi party system as well. I want to join the reform party as I don't fit in the left or the right.

[The New California Republic]

now people want a three party or even a multi party system.

Ooh calm down there lad(!)

[Garkland]

now people want a three party or even a multi party system.

Ooh calm down there lad(!)

I'm not the biggest fan of Multi party I support more of a Third party... we shouldn't have party for every citizen to be honest. There should be a left, right, and a centrist party.

[Lorrana]

I think political parties are a terrible idea, due to voters just voting for their favorite party rather than actually looking into the candidates.

That being said, if there had to be political parties, I think multi-party system (4+) is the best way to go. This is because just having two parties isn't enough to cover all of the possible beliefs and ideals people have. Personally, my beliefs are an odd combination of the USA's Republican and Democratic parties, so I myself am unaffiliated.

[The Blaatschapen]

I always state that a two party system is just one party away from a one party system.

The good thing about no party having more than 50% of the seats in parliament is that they have to make compromises. This takes the sharper edges off everyone's platform.

And the best way to reach a state where no party has more than 50% is by having more than two parties in parliament.

3, 4,5,6 parties is good.

More than 10 and it becomes quite impractical in getting a majority coalition.

[Greater Kopmakia]

A multi-party system would be so much better than a two party.

[Garkland]

I always state that a two party system is just one party away from a one party system.

The good thing about no party having more than 50% of the seats in parliament is that they have to make compromises. This takes the sharper edges off everyone's platform.

And the best way to reach a state where no party has more than 50% is by having more than two parties in parliament.

3, 4,5,6 parties is good.

More than 10 and it becomes quite impractical in getting a majority coalition.

I do wonder, what would be the 2 other parties in America if it was a Multi party system?

[Disgraces]

Ooh calm down there lad(!)

I'm not the biggest fan of Multi party I support more of a Third party... we shouldn't have party for every citizen to be honest. There should be a left, right, and a centrist party.

There's much more to parties than being classified as left, righ, or center.

[The Two Jerseys]

Multi-party systems still have political games.

Their games are probably even worse, because at least one party is going to end up selling out in order to get into power.

[The New California Republic]

I do wonder, what would be the 2 other parties in America if it was a Multi party system?

I'd say it's obvious: there would be one that's on the left that would be along social democratic lines, and one on the far right that's...along...Nazi lines...

But it should be said that the USA is already, on paper at least, a multi party system. Of course nobody denies the dominance of the donkeys and elephants, but multiple parties do exist.

[Heloin]

Two party systems are for people who love the idea of a single party state but are unwilling to fully commit to it.

[Greater Kopmakia]

I always state that a two party system is just one party away from a one party system.

The good thing about no party having more than 50% of the seats in parliament is that they have to make compromises. This takes the sharper edges off everyone's platform.

And the best way to reach a state where no party has more than 50% is by having more than two parties in parliament.

3, 4,5,6 parties is good.

More than 10 and it becomes quite impractical in getting a majority coalition.

I do wonder, what would be the 2 other parties in America if it was a Multi party system?

Well, the Democrats and Republicans are two massive coalitions. If there were multiple parties in the US a centrist party would likely gain quite a bit of power as it would attract people from either side of the spectrum. Hard line Christian conservatives might leave the Republicans and form their own party, same thing with the more radical leftists. The Libertarian Party would definitely see some growth as well.

[Atheris]

Yes.

[Garkland]

I do wonder, what would be the 2 other parties in America if it was a Multi party system?

Well, the Democrats and Republicans are two massive coalitions. If there were multiple parties in the US a centrist party would likely gain quite a bit of power as it would attract people from either side of the spectrum. Hard line Christian conservatives might leave the Republicans and form their own party, same thing with the more radical leftists. The Libertarian Party would definitely see some growth as well.

What do you think is the chances of a Multi party system (technically USA is multi party but in action is two party) being established in the US? I think very high there is a need for it, having a two party system causes polarization.

[Greater Kopmakia]

Well, the Democrats and Republicans are two massive coalitions. If there were multiple parties in the US a centrist party would likely gain quite a bit of power as it would attract people from either side of the spectrum. Hard line Christian conservatives might leave the Republicans and form their own party, same thing with the more radical leftists. The Libertarian Party would definitely see some growth as well.

What do you think is the chances of a Multi party system (technically USA is multi party but in action is two party) being established in the US? I think very high there is a need for it, having a two party system causes polarization.

The two party system in the US has been going strong since the US Civil War. It's heavily unlikely unless something extremely damaging to both of the parties occurs (if it only happens to one party the other will likely simply fill the power vacuum) because although the Dems and GOP hate each other, they hate third parties capable of threatening their power even more.

[My Political Fantasy]

I don't think it is physically possible for the United States to actually have a functioning multiparty system until we get rid of our voting system all together. The United States uses first-past-the-post voting which is basically a system in which a candidate with the largest plurality wins an election. First-past-the-post results in smaller parties never getting elected because they fail to get a large enough plurality in elections. The end result is that the United States has two competing parties to see who can get the larger piece of the plurality cake. Maybe something closer to a proportional representation will give smaller parties a chance in the United States.

[Greater Kopmakia]

I don't think it is physically possible for the United States to actually have a functioning multiparty system until we get rid of our voting system all together. The United States uses first-past-the-post voting which is basically a system in which a candidate with the largest plurality wins and election. First-past-the-post results in smaller parties never getting elected because they fail to get a large enough plurality in elections. The end result is that the United States has two competing parties to see who can get the larger piece of the plurality cake. Maybe something closer to a proportional representation will give smaller parties a chance in the United States.

^This as well.

[Arisyan]

Multi-party system is beneficial, given that it diversifies the political system and removes general stigmas and divisiveness. And we wouldn't have the right calling the centre commies, because they don't need to. However a 2 party+ system is also pretty good (its what we have in Canada) where there are two major left and right-wing parties that are the only parties that have a chance at appointing a head of government, however third parties play an important role and will usually end up supporting a party in government or maybe they'll get lucky and be the official opposition.

[Major-Tom]

It depends on your end goal. Multi-party parliamentary systems tend to move a bit more incrementally, be a bit less polarized, and focus on slow-moving coalitions that gradually get things done. Two-Party systems (US) or "two-party dominant systems (IE the UK, Canada, Australia)," have the downside of higher rates of polarization and less of a voice for many people in the electoral process, but with one party often having the majority, a policy program tends to be rammed through a good deal faster.

Still, I'd take the multi-party model on account of how badly the overton window can shift under a two-party system, how it breeds polarization, and how it can be dangerous to the democratic process in the long term. Look no further than the GOP continually trying to suppress voters and pack our legal system with ideologues less concerned about the judicial process than rigid conservatism, for instance.

[Greater Kopmakia]

It depends on your end goal. Multi-party parliamentary systems tend to move a bit more incrementally, be a bit less polarized, and focus on slow-moving coalitions that gradually get things done. Two-Party systems (US) or "two-party dominant systems (IE the UK, Canada, Australia)," have the downside of higher rates of polarization and less of a voice for many people in the electoral process, but with one party often having the majority, a policy program tends to be rammed through a good deal faster.

Still, I'd take the multi-party model on account of how badly the overton window can shift under a two-party system, how it breeds polarization, and how it can be dangerous to the democratic process in the long term. Look no further than the GOP continually trying to suppress voters and pack our legal system with ideologues less concerned about the judicial process than rigid conservatism, for instance.

Eh, I think both the GOP and Dems have been attempting to suppress the other side for decades. For example the GOP carrying on countless investigations into the Dems, and the Dems attempting to impeach a president that's no longer even in office to ensure he can't run again.

[Major-Tom]

It depends on your end goal. Multi-party parliamentary systems tend to move a bit more incrementally, be a bit less polarized, and focus on slow-moving coalitions that gradually get things done. Two-Party systems (US) or "two-party dominant systems (IE the UK, Canada, Australia)," have the downside of higher rates of polarization and less of a voice for many people in the electoral process, but with one party often having the majority, a policy program tends to be rammed through a good deal faster.

Still, I'd take the multi-party model on account of how badly the overton window can shift under a two-party system, how it breeds polarization, and how it can be dangerous to the democratic process in the long term. Look no further than the GOP continually trying to suppress voters and pack our legal system with ideologues less concerned about the judicial process than rigid conservatism, for instance.

Eh, I think both the GOP and Dems have been attempting to suppress the other side for decades. For example the GOP carrying on countless investigations into the Dems, and the Dems attempting to impeach a president that's no longer even in office to ensure he can't run again.

That's not what I mean by suppression. The Dems, if I recall, have not been the folks trying to suppress mail-in ballots that are disproportionately Democratic, purging voter rolls that unfairly target minorities, implementing strict Voter ID laws that also target minority groups etc etc.

Impeachment trials and investigations have nothing to with voter suppression. At all.

[Nuroblav]

I don't like going to parties

Ok but seriously if you're gonna have a government then better have as much input as possible. Speaking from a country with a multi-party system, it does an alright job of allowing outside input from the two 'main' parties, even if they don't get in. So even if the party you vote for doesn't get in, they have the potential to make enough of a splash to shift the political tides.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Multiple Parties gets Huskar hot and bothered

[Atheris]

I don't think it is physically possible for the United States to actually have a functioning multiparty system until we get rid of our voting system all together. The United States uses first-past-the-post voting which is basically a system in which a candidate with the largest plurality wins an election. First-past-the-post results in smaller parties never getting elected because they fail to get a large enough plurality in elections. The end result is that the United States has two competing parties to see who can get the larger piece of the plurality cake. Maybe something closer to a proportional representation will give smaller parties a chance in the United States.

To quote No Safe Harbor:

This 'tactical voting' is the waste of a vote. Instead of voting for the person you wish to represent you, you are voting to try and deny someone else from doing so, by supporting the opponent who is believed to be the greatest challenge. This then leads to the two major parties producing candidates who are at odds with each other, to get this dichotomy, and play people into an 'us or them' situation. There is another cost. The elected representatives in Congress are universally distrusted, and often thought of as corrupt. Why? Well, they don't actually represent the views of their constituents. What they represent is the views of the political party of the candidate that was not as disliked as the other. The other result is the rise in negative campaign adverts. Why spend money saying “vote for me, I'm better,” when you can spend the money pointing out how bad your major opponent is, and get the tactical vote as a response. The additional bonus from this method is if you lose, you've got your adverts to say “I told you so,” and if you win you've got very few promises to be held accountable for. All this from tactical voting. What a sham!

“Third parties are a waste of time. They will never win.”

There is no reason why they are a waste of time. The main reason they won't win is not because people don't support them, but due to tactical voting (see above) people are too afraid to be on the losing side. In addition, there are other elements to supporting the party that matches your views most closely, even if it's a 3rd party. Aside from winning the election, there are other goals that can be achieved, such as federal funding if the party reached 5% in the previous election. This can be a substantial benefit to many candidates. Major parties are also scared of third parties. In 2004, when the Libertarian party sued the Commission for Presidential Debates (the organization that runs the presidential campaign debates), the Republican party, and the Democratic Party, over being unfairly excluded from the debates (they had a nationally available candidate, and the debate was paid for using state funds, and held in a state venue (Arizona State university for the 3rd debate), the debate could have gone ahead if the two candidates had agreed to allow Badnarik to participate. Both refused. The Presidential Debates are a substantial piece of advertising, rather than actual debate when it excludes significant candidates. Ninety minutes of prime time television and radio is expensive, and when you add in the news coverage and analysis of it, it's a major chunk.

[-Ocelot-]

Multi party system is the ideal democratic model, but countries with effectively 2-party systems (e.g: The United States) didn't exactly suffer from it.

Anything other than a 1 party dictatorship can be good for a country. And it depends on many factors.